Or they're built with some sense and actually cover the population's needs. I wonder how it is that trains are so successful across Europe and Asia, but are a proletarian fantasy that couldn't possibly work in the US.
Trains aren't sucessful in europe. They are a massive drain of resources that survive primarily as a result of subsidies and government policy.
The US ironically has a much more efficient and sustainable train network, it's just that the thing trains are really efficient at is cargo, not personal transportation.
Are you implying that being successful and receiving subsidies are mutually exclusive? In which case the petroleum industry would like to have a word with you.
Much like with healthcare, European countries (generally) tend to think that it's decent idea to spend government resources to provide value to their citizen.
Having regularly commuted using trains in Europe for a decade and a half, I would argue they are a pretty great, comfortable mode of transportation – and I can feel slightly more at ease knowing I'm not contributing as much to our carbon emissions.
You are missing the obvious point that infrastructure is a main use of taxes. Do you think roads are profitable?
Rail (& other public transport) has many other benefits, e.g. you'll need less policing and maintenance of roads if they are less used; air pollution from fossil fuels and tire wear are reduced, stress and accidents are reduced thereby decreasing healthcare costs, etc.
It all is a matter of building up the proper network, rather than to give more subsidies to big oil and the car industries (see the eternally repeating bailouts).
The Federal government in the United States does not require tax revenue to fund road construction. The only tax actually earmarked for this purpose is the gasoline tax, which is less than 2% of the Federal government’s appropriations for highway construction. Federal taxes are largely punitive and coercive (we want you to do this thing like have children, or live here, or not get too rich doing that thing because otherwise Lockheed lobbyists get upset).
All I had to do was google “Are roads fully funded by the gas tax” to find a contracticting source:
> Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income
and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.
Perhaps my use of the term “earmarked” was confusing. This refers to a congressional requirement that certain tax revenues be allocated for specific purposes. That’s the gasoline tax and very very very few taxes are written this way.
Have you actually been in any European country? Trains are heavily used for short, medium and long distance travel. High-speed rail in Western Europe is huge. Many many people commute via train or subway.
Profitability has absolutely nothing to do with it. High speed rail in France is hugely profitable, but the state subsides many lines because it's the right thing to do. Railways have a higher capacity, are much cleaner and faster, and are provided as a common service. You don't expect the fire department or forest service to be profitable, do you?
I have lived in europe all my life, and have extensive experience with both trains and other forms of public transportation in several European countries.
But often requires you to travel a few hours to a faraway airport. It has its place and is cheaper and faster on specific combos ( e.g. Barcelona to Warsaw), but trains are usually faster/more pleasant/cheaper and always cleaner.
